hes losing me as time goes as he seems to be saying the same as his nut case father.

Dept of education , OK but what shall we do for education as he has not mentioned that part.
Like someone told me once last week.
Libertarians say some great stuff but in the real world it doesn;t work and it;s all about a fantasy do what ever you want world

What;s next get rid of the FBI, CIA and then the border patrol like his father?

He;s all for the illegals, he threw a present to the homosexuals about marriage recently.

Permissive views on sex, drugs and victimless crimes make sense to libertarians.

I can live with it. I want to see freedom and less government. Lot less.

There isnt anyone else who can do it. Conservatives are in disarray and could not win a cakewalk. RINOs are more of the same and everyone knows it. In this increasing police state, freedom allows everything else to follow.

With freedom you can get the conservative things you want down the road. Without freedom you are a cog in the leftist machine. Enslaved for a long time.

18
posted on 03/14/2013 7:37:03 PM PDT
by Chickensoup
(200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)

homosexuals are here but does not mean we let them have their sick twisted feces sex agenda.
If homsoexuals get their way then the first amendment is gone for religius freedom, then people will be slaves becauseif one speaks up they will be jailed as they do in the UK and other places

illegals would be stopped if people started to stand up, I know about immigration and what it takes

TSA hell yea let it go private as well as AMTRAK

Return to states I can go for but what happens when one state is easy to get A’s and the other is tough to get A’s but then colleges will have different marks to get in.

Sorry but Paul makes some good ponts but his illegals and now homosexual agenda is losing me if not lost me

“Dept of education , OK but what shall we do for education as he has not mentioned that part.”

Huh? The Department of Education doesn’t educate anyone. It never has. No child has ever been taught by the Department of Education. The Department of Education doesn’t build schools, run schools, create or supply textbooks or pay teachers.

It is a giant beaurocracy that exists for the sake of having a giant beaurocracy. It could vanish and no one would ever notice and it would save countless billions in the process.

One has only to peruse to comments on ANY Ron Paul FR Thread in the past two years to conclude that Permissive Libertarianism is antithetic to the principled Republican, Conservative and Independent voters.

Rand did a great job of exposing the Monarchist wing of the GOP, whose mantra is: ‘My King, right or wrong.’

WRONG! The Primary function of the Department of Education is to give children ‘Free” food. Hence, the “School Lunch Program.”

Children hand-fed at the local school commune dining hall, will automatically expect other ‘Free’ stuff from their communal University in the form more ‘Free’ food and ‘Free’ student loans that will never need to be paid back.

Thus, indoctrinated with the fuzzy-warm memories of Communal Coddling they, as legal adults vote in politicians who promise to give them even more ‘Free’ Stuff.

I firmly believe ‘permissive’ isn’t the word to be used; the description ‘Constitutionalist’ would be more accurate.

The Federal government should be limited to those powers stated in the U.S.Constitution. Any powers not so stated are reserved for the States. Every State in the Union, for example, has an Education Department and an Agriculture Department. (Duplication is killing our economy!) Education of one’s children should be under local control, as should agriculture.

State governments are where social engineering belongs. The Progressives have reapeatedly, over the past 100 years, used activist judges to carve out so called “rights” that do not exist in the U.S.Constitution. That is why who we elect as President and as Governors is so important.

There is no right to murder unborn children.
There is no right to marry whoever or whatever you want.

“Permissive views on sex, drugs and victimless crimes make sense to libertarians.”

WRONG!!

Their view may state it isn’t their business to be nannies on the Federal level, and sometimes on the state level, as well. But it is not within the Federal governments power to monitor such behavior; it belongs to the States. If you live in a state that does legislate such behavior and you’re pleased with the result, good. But it isn’t the Federal government’s respnsibility - they do not have the power per the Constitution to deal with it.

30
posted on 03/15/2013 1:28:41 AM PDT
by SatinDoll
(NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)

It has often occurred to me how much the Federal budget could be reduced by just governing per the U.S.Constitution. There is a huge amount of money wasted on duplication of efforts by the Federal and State governments.

33
posted on 03/15/2013 5:29:17 AM PDT
by SatinDoll
(NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)

You are assuming because he is hanging onto counterculture and permissive views that he isnt a supporter of the U.S.Constitution?

The founders had views on morality that made today's average American look licentious (obviously) yet they managed to keep the Constitution focused on the proper & very limited role of government. If Paul can avoid getting wrapped around the MSM's axle & stay focused on the appropriate role of the federal government leaving the rest to the localities we'll have solved most of our problems.

Abolishing the Dept of Education so DC no longer can push its pro gay on the states is a good example.

” - - - Sen. Rand Paul is a Republican with a capiol R, and a libertarian with a lowercase L. - - - “

YES! That is the way I see Rand Paul. He, like many of us have many opinions, some of which will alienate other blocks of voters.

For example, he and Senator Cruz are the two Senators who, by word and deed, support the US Constitution the best of anyone in the US Senate.

I remain to be convinced that most Conservatives in the Republican, Democrat or Independent voter segments find much Constitutional support for the ideas of Permissive Libertarianism on drugs, border law violators, and marriage.

Hence, the conflict for Rand Paul: Strong support of the US Constitution on Governmental topics, and moderate support for Permissive expansion of the US Constitution on social matters.

IMHO, there are plenty of laws on the books for violators of border laws and drug laws. The main problem is that the US Federal Government refuses to enforce them to the limit of the respective laws.

Social issues are probably better handled at a moral level, with local laws instituted, if needed.

Those who embrace Social Issues in politics are embracing the proverbial Greek Hydra.

Ron Paul never figured it out, and lost significant support for his Constitutional ideas.

Rand Paul has the opportunity to avoid the Hydra of Social Issues by assigning Social topics to the sphere of Morality, and focus on the topics found in the US Constitution.

When asked by the Liberal Agenda Media to embrace the Social Issues Hydra, he need only reply: “ These are Social Issues that are best resolved at the Church or local level, unless mentioned in the US Constitution.”

I remain to be convinced that most Conservatives in the Republican, Democrat or Independent voter segments find much Constitutional support for the ideas of Permissive Libertarianism on drugs

The Constitution gives the feds no authority over any drugs that don't cross state lines. And opposition to drug laws is not "permissive" but simply a recognition of the limits of government's ability to effect positive change.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.